I found this video on youtube the other morning. It's a documentary about Michelin stars (well you didn't expect it to be about AA Rosettes given the post title) examining the single minded determination with which chefs pursue them and what they mean to the everyday diner.
For something that started out as a guidebook to garages, the Michelin guide has taken on an almost biblical role in the restaurant review world. Reputations are made and lost on what it says. If you don't believe me, watch the programme. One person interviewed tells of French restaurants that go out of business shortly after losing stars. However is this reputation deserved and is there a bias towards classic French cooking over other styles of food?
My experience of Michelin cooking is limited. Going to restaurants with stars tends to be reserved as a treat for a special occasion. However my opinion based on that experience is that, at the one star level, the food is often at a par with non-starred eateries. That's not a negative comment towards the stars and more a positive comment towards the other places. Where I have noticed the difference is in the style of food and the style of service. In the one star places I have eaten, the food has always had a very French bias with the emphasis on delicately prepared ingredients that have been artfully presented. The word rustic could never apply! Similarly the service tends to be a bit more formal, almost like a dance where both the customer and the waiters know the steps. Compare this to the non-starred places where the food is still beautifully prepared and presented but is often much less fussy and fiddly. The service too is usually a bit more relaxed.
Strangely at the two and three star places I have eaten the opposite is true; when it comes to the service. As the number of stars increases, the service gets more relaxed and friendly. As I said in my post about Gordon Ramsay's three star restaurant, I was expecting the whole atmosphere to be very stuffy and yet it wasn't. It was still very dignified but guests and staff were united by a shared passion for food and the desire to make an experience of the whole event.
The conclusion in the programme was that Michelin stars were, if not over-hyped, then certainly not worth the deference they receive. It also suggested that there was still a distinct bias towards traditional French cooking and were not always a totally reliable guide. Instead they were a good means of motivating chefs to greater feats of achievement and skill.
I would disagree with some elements of this. Perhaps at the one-star end of the scale the guide can award a few too many. That's not to say that the restaurants that have them do not deserve them but acknowledges the fact that there are other restaurants that are equally as deserving. Then again, if I were a chef I would want one. They are not necessarily an absolute indicator of cooking prowess in the same way that exam grades don't always accurately reflect subject knowledge but everyone still wants an A anyway. Stars are however a good indicator of good, consistent cooking, fresh ingredients and showcasing of good produce and therefore can be a useful indicator for places to eat if one is new to an area or unfamiliar with what it has to offer. They are also a useful means of recognising and rewarding efforts expended by chefs.
Best of all in my opinion, Michelin inspectors guide their identity jealously. This means that their experience is hopefully about as close to the service received by normal customers as is possible to get by professional food critics. I like this philosophy and I think it bodes well for customer service. Michael Caines put it brilliantly when he was interviewed for the programme when he said that he treats every customer as if they are a Michelin inspector because they could well be.
So in conclusion; Michelin stars might not be the absolute epitome of good cooking but you would struggle to get a bad plate of food there.
TFB
For something that started out as a guidebook to garages, the Michelin guide has taken on an almost biblical role in the restaurant review world. Reputations are made and lost on what it says. If you don't believe me, watch the programme. One person interviewed tells of French restaurants that go out of business shortly after losing stars. However is this reputation deserved and is there a bias towards classic French cooking over other styles of food?
My experience of Michelin cooking is limited. Going to restaurants with stars tends to be reserved as a treat for a special occasion. However my opinion based on that experience is that, at the one star level, the food is often at a par with non-starred eateries. That's not a negative comment towards the stars and more a positive comment towards the other places. Where I have noticed the difference is in the style of food and the style of service. In the one star places I have eaten, the food has always had a very French bias with the emphasis on delicately prepared ingredients that have been artfully presented. The word rustic could never apply! Similarly the service tends to be a bit more formal, almost like a dance where both the customer and the waiters know the steps. Compare this to the non-starred places where the food is still beautifully prepared and presented but is often much less fussy and fiddly. The service too is usually a bit more relaxed.
Strangely at the two and three star places I have eaten the opposite is true; when it comes to the service. As the number of stars increases, the service gets more relaxed and friendly. As I said in my post about Gordon Ramsay's three star restaurant, I was expecting the whole atmosphere to be very stuffy and yet it wasn't. It was still very dignified but guests and staff were united by a shared passion for food and the desire to make an experience of the whole event.
The conclusion in the programme was that Michelin stars were, if not over-hyped, then certainly not worth the deference they receive. It also suggested that there was still a distinct bias towards traditional French cooking and were not always a totally reliable guide. Instead they were a good means of motivating chefs to greater feats of achievement and skill.
I would disagree with some elements of this. Perhaps at the one-star end of the scale the guide can award a few too many. That's not to say that the restaurants that have them do not deserve them but acknowledges the fact that there are other restaurants that are equally as deserving. Then again, if I were a chef I would want one. They are not necessarily an absolute indicator of cooking prowess in the same way that exam grades don't always accurately reflect subject knowledge but everyone still wants an A anyway. Stars are however a good indicator of good, consistent cooking, fresh ingredients and showcasing of good produce and therefore can be a useful indicator for places to eat if one is new to an area or unfamiliar with what it has to offer. They are also a useful means of recognising and rewarding efforts expended by chefs.
Best of all in my opinion, Michelin inspectors guide their identity jealously. This means that their experience is hopefully about as close to the service received by normal customers as is possible to get by professional food critics. I like this philosophy and I think it bodes well for customer service. Michael Caines put it brilliantly when he was interviewed for the programme when he said that he treats every customer as if they are a Michelin inspector because they could well be.
So in conclusion; Michelin stars might not be the absolute epitome of good cooking but you would struggle to get a bad plate of food there.
TFB
No comments:
Post a Comment